Chicago Bears 2012 Championship Season: Lovestink is Forever.

[SKO]

Found this nugget on SKO's site and couldn't resist. It's so dumb. Not one of these arguments makes any  sense, he has to be kidding right?

"Fro Dog said...
No, I don't think the Bears have at least two wins left in them and I'll tell you why.

1. Vikings - They are not very happy right now and haven't won in a little while.

2. Cardinals - The Bears, historically (even in 2006), have had a horrible time with this team. I know that what happened years ago isn't relevant but it is a trend.

3. Packers - They are 1-9 in their last ten games and that one win was on a Monday night where the refs helped the Bears. Aaron Rodgers owns them.

4. Lions - They barely beat them the first time around and this game is on the road.

If you want to rebuttal, feel free.
December 3, 2012 1:24 AM"

Okay, so on the one that can actually be analyzed statistically.

Aaron Rodgers owns them

So yes...Rodgers basically owns the Bears.
In some ways he owns them less than he owns the rest of the NFL, but using winning % of the most likely crux of his argument - he's basically right.

Arguments 1 and 2 above are insanely idiotic.  
4 has at least little low-level merit, assuming home field advantage still is worth a few points (something that invariably has been assessed statistically for recent times.)

Edit: Because I'm too lazy to fix the spreadsheet and re-save as an image and then re-upload the image, note that TD/ATT and INT/ATT should be reversed.  Those are actually ATT/TD and ATT/INT (essentially the frequency of the occurrence.)

In general the Bears defense plays better against Rodgers than most teams in the NFL do, particularly if you look at them since they acquired Julius Peppers (since the 2008-2009 defenses were terrible). The Packers have had 20 or more offensive points in just two of their six meetings since the start of 2010, with one of those being the late season debacle in Green Bay last year where Josh McCown and Kahlil Bell were the starting backfield and they benched Tim Jennings for Zack Bowman and all kinds of shit happened.

The more accurate statement would be that the Bears will lose to Green Bay because Dom Capers owns Jay Cutler, because that's the real reason they've lost those games.

Also, the Bears, in my memory, have played the Cardinals three times in the last decade. They won 28-7 in 2003 behind Brock Forsey and Kordell Stewart over Jeff Blake, so that's TOTALLY going to factor into this year's game. They won the Denny Green Game in 2006, and they lost to Kurt Warner in 2009. So yeah, the Bears have sucked against the Cardinals this last decade, winning just 2/3rds of the time and they're screwed if Kurt Warner comes out of retirement to lead Arizona to victory. Trends.

The Vikings thing is just the best argument for anything ever. THEY'RE GOING TO WIN BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN LOSING A LOT LATELY, AND BOY HOWDY ARE THEY TIRED OF IT!

In general the Bears defense plays better against Rodgers than most teams in the NFL do

This is a really, really meatball homer Bears fan generous interpretation of the data.

Right, because I offered no further explanation or any other data after that. Would it have been more appropriate to replace "Rodgers" with "the Packers offense" because, like I said, here are the total offensive points scored by the Packers against the Bears going back to 2010: 17, 10, 14, 27, 35, 16. I included the NFC Championship game, where Rodgers had 0 TDs, 2 INTs, and a 54 passer rating. So in their last six games against the Bears the Packers have averaged 19.8 offensive points where they've averaged 30.1 offensive PPG against other teams during that same time frame. So no, other than holding a team that's shredded the rest of the NFL for 30 PPG to less than 20, the Bears don't do any better against Rodgers than anyone else. So you can generously interpret me telling you to kiss my ass however you'd like.

EDIT: It's actually 29.9 offensive PPG against the rest of the league instead of 30.1, as I failed to subtract 7 points for Tramon Williams' pick six of Matt Ryan in the 2010 divisional round.

[PenPho]

Found this nugget on SKO's site and couldn't resist. It's so dumb. Not one of these arguments makes any  sense, he has to be kidding right?

"Fro Dog said...
No, I don't think the Bears have at least two wins left in them and I'll tell you why.

1. Vikings - They are not very happy right now and haven't won in a little while.

2. Cardinals - The Bears, historically (even in 2006), have had a horrible time with this team. I know that what happened years ago isn't relevant but it is a trend.

3. Packers - They are 1-9 in their last ten games and that one win was on a Monday night where the refs helped the Bears. Aaron Rodgers owns them.

4. Lions - They barely beat them the first time around and this game is on the road.

If you want to rebuttal, feel free.
December 3, 2012 1:24 AM"

Okay, so on the one that can actually be analyzed statistically.

Aaron Rodgers owns them

So yes...Rodgers basically owns the Bears.
In some ways he owns them less than he owns the rest of the NFL, but using winning % of the most likely crux of his argument - he's basically right.

Arguments 1 and 2 above are insanely idiotic.  
4 has at least little low-level merit, assuming home field advantage still is worth a few points (something that invariably has been assessed statistically for recent times.)

Edit: Because I'm too lazy to fix the spreadsheet and re-save as an image and then re-upload the image, note that TD/ATT and INT/ATT should be reversed.  Those are actually ATT/TD and ATT/INT (essentially the frequency of the occurrence.)

In general the Bears defense plays better against Rodgers than most teams in the NFL do, particularly if you look at them since they acquired Julius Peppers (since the 2008-2009 defenses were terrible). The Packers have had 20 or more offensive points in just two of their six meetings since the start of 2010, with one of those being the late season debacle in Green Bay last year where Josh McCown and Kahlil Bell were the starting backfield and they benched Tim Jennings for Zack Bowman and all kinds of shit happened.

The more accurate statement would be that the Bears will lose to Green Bay because Dom Capers owns Jay Cutler, because that's the real reason they've lost those games.

Also, the Bears, in my memory, have played the Cardinals three times in the last decade. They won 28-7 in 2003 behind Brock Forsey and Kordell Stewart over Jeff Blake, so that's TOTALLY going to factor into this year's game. They won the Denny Green Game in 2006, and they lost to Kurt Warner in 2009. So yeah, the Bears have sucked against the Cardinals this last decade, winning just 2/3rds of the time and they're screwed if Kurt Warner comes out of retirement to lead Arizona to victory. Trends.

The Vikings thing is just the best argument for anything ever. THEY'RE GOING TO WIN BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN LOSING A LOT LATELY, AND BOY HOWDY ARE THEY TIRED OF IT!

In general the Bears defense plays better against Rodgers than most teams in the NFL do

This is a really, really meatball homer Bears fan generous interpretation of the data.

Right, because I offered no further explanation or any other data after that. Would it have been more appropriate to replace "Rodgers" with "the Packers offense" because, like I said, here are the total offensive points scored by the Packers against the Bears going back to 2010: 17, 10, 14, 27, 35, 16. I included the NFC Championship game, where Rodgers had 0 TDs, 2 INTs, and a 54 passer rating. So in their last six games against the Bears the Packers have averaged 19.8 offensive points where they've averaged 30.1 offensive PPG against other teams during that same time frame. So no, other than holding a team that's shredded the rest of the NFL for 30 PPG to less than 20, the Bears don't do any better against Rodgers than anyone else. So you can generously interpret me telling you to kiss my ass however you'd like.

EDIT: It's actually 29.9 offensive PPG against the rest of the league instead of 30.1, as I failed to subtract 7 points for Tramon Williams' pick six of Matt Ryan in the 2010 divisional round.

No, it's perfectly appropriate, assuming that using Chuck-ian time constraints works in your favor.

[SKO]

No, it's perfectly appropriate, assuming that using Chuck-ian time constraints works in your favor.

So using the statistics of the Bears defense since the start of 2010, when they brought in Julius Peppers, Tim Jennings, and Henry Melton is somehow misleading? It's a more accurate reflection of their performance in recent years to go back to 2009 when there were only two defensive starters ( Briggs, and Tillman, Urlacher missed all but the first half of the first game with injury) who are still starting on the team, vs. 2010, the first year where Peppers, Jennings, Melton, Idonije, and Wright all started or contributed? I don't see how it's pertinent to future performance (and this is relevant, since Fro was predicting a Bears loss in two weeks) to look at numbers from a defense that was nearly unrecognizable to the one that's on the field now, vs. the data since 2010, where the team, outside of a few changes (Chris Conte, Steven Paea, Nick Roach) was more or less the same.

[SKO]

No, it's perfectly appropriate, assuming that using Chuck-ian time constraints works in your favor.

So using the statistics of the Bears defense since the start of 2010, when they brought in Julius Peppers, Tim Jennings, and Henry Melton is somehow misleading? It's a more accurate reflection of their performance in recent years to go back to 2009 when there were only two defensive starters ( Briggs, and Tillman, Urlacher missed all but the first half of the first game with injury) who are still starting on the team, vs. 2010, the first year where Peppers, Jennings, Melton, Idonije, and Wright all started or contributed? I don't see how it's pertinent to future performance (and this is relevant, since Fro was predicting a Bears loss in two weeks) to look at numbers from a defense that was nearly unrecognizable to the one that's on the field now, vs. the data since 2010, where the team, outside of a few changes (Chris Conte, Steven Paea, Nick Roach) was more or less the same.

Actually, you know what? Fuck it. I don't need your Chuck-ian restraints. Even if you throw in point totals for 2008 and 2009 (27 PPG against the Bears in 2008, 21 PPG in 2009 vs. 22.2 offensive PPG and 30.4 PPG in those years, respectively) the Bears have still defended the Packers offense better than the league in all but one year of Rodgers career.

[PenPho]

No, it's perfectly appropriate, assuming that using Chuck-ian time constraints works in your favor.

So using the statistics of the Bears defense since the start of 2010, when they brought in Julius Peppers, Tim Jennings, and Henry Melton is somehow misleading? It's a more accurate reflection of their performance in recent years to go back to 2009 when there were only two defensive starters ( Briggs, and Tillman, Urlacher missed all but the first half of the first game with injury) who are still starting on the team, vs. 2010, the first year where Peppers, Jennings, Melton, Idonije, and Wright all started or contributed? I don't see how it's pertinent to future performance (and this is relevant, since Fro was predicting a Bears loss in two weeks) to look at numbers from a defense that was nearly unrecognizable to the one that's on the field now, vs. the data since 2010, where the team, outside of a few changes (Chris Conte, Steven Paea, Nick Roach) was more or less the same.

Actually, you know what? Fuck it. I don't need your Chuck-ian restraints. Even if you throw in point totals for 2008 and 2009 (27 PPG against the Bears in 2008, 21 PPG in 2009 vs. 22.2 offensive PPG and 30.4 PPG in those years, respectively) the Bears have still defended the Packers offense better than the league in all but one year of Rodgers career.

If you want to add in points scored, which seems reasonable, you can put that one towards the Bears.

It's another proof point to add in service of the larger picture (refer to original table above), which basically sums up to Rodgers owning the Bears.

My original point said: "In some ways he owns them less than he owns the rest of the NFL" but you're deluding yourself if you don't acknowledge that he has essentially kicked the crap out of the Bears for the last 4-5 years.  

You can try and spin it anyway you like, but he's still 7-2 with a 101 Passer Rating, a 16/6 TD:INT ratio and a 70% completion rate.  

[SKO]

No, it's perfectly appropriate, assuming that using Chuck-ian time constraints works in your favor.

So using the statistics of the Bears defense since the start of 2010, when they brought in Julius Peppers, Tim Jennings, and Henry Melton is somehow misleading? It's a more accurate reflection of their performance in recent years to go back to 2009 when there were only two defensive starters ( Briggs, and Tillman, Urlacher missed all but the first half of the first game with injury) who are still starting on the team, vs. 2010, the first year where Peppers, Jennings, Melton, Idonije, and Wright all started or contributed? I don't see how it's pertinent to future performance (and this is relevant, since Fro was predicting a Bears loss in two weeks) to look at numbers from a defense that was nearly unrecognizable to the one that's on the field now, vs. the data since 2010, where the team, outside of a few changes (Chris Conte, Steven Paea, Nick Roach) was more or less the same.

Actually, you know what? Fuck it. I don't need your Chuck-ian restraints. Even if you throw in point totals for 2008 and 2009 (27 PPG against the Bears in 2008, 21 PPG in 2009 vs. 22.2 offensive PPG and 30.4 PPG in those years, respectively) the Bears have still defended the Packers offense better than the league in all but one year of Rodgers career.

If you want to add in points scored, which seems reasonable, you can put that one towards the Bears.

It's another proof point to add in service of the larger picture (refer to original table above), which basically sums up to Rodgers owning the Bears.

My original point said: "In some ways he owns them less than he owns the rest of the NFL" but you're deluding yourself if you don't acknowledge that he has essentially kicked the crap out of the Bears for the last 4-5 years. 

You can try and spin it anyway you like, but he's still 7-2 with a 101 Passer Rating and a 69% completion rate. 

Passer rating and completion % being overrated statistics. A YPA that's a over half a yard less against the Bears, an interceptions/game total that's higher, and again, lower point totals, would indicate that my initial statement:

"In general the Bears defense plays better against Rodgers than most teams in the NFL do, particularly if you look at them since they acquired Julius Peppers (since the 2008-2009 defenses were terrible). The Packers have had 20 or more offensive points in just two of their six meetings since the start of 2010, with one of those being the late season debacle in Green Bay last year where Josh McCown and Kahlil Bell were the starting backfield and they benched Tim Jennings for Zack Bowman and all kinds of shit happened.

The more accurate statement would be that the Bears will lose to Green Bay because Dom Capers owns Jay Cutler, because that's the real reason they've lost those games. "

Was pretty goddamn accurate. I don't see a hopelessly deluded Bears fan in there. Especially when that crazy homer said,  quote "the Bears will lose to Green Bay because Dom Capers owns Jay Cutler", because when you're holding the best offense in the NFL to about 20 PPG, which is the best you could probably hope for in that situation regularly and still losing the games, you have to acknowledge that it's probably get less to do with Rodgers than his counterpart.

But I'm just a Jay Cutler dong-slurping meatball Bears homer for pointing out stuff that's factually accurate while predicting that the Bears will fucking lose the game because the quarterback I worship will probably throw 2-4 INTs against them for the 6th time in 8 games. You got me.

[Internet Apex]

No, it's perfectly appropriate, assuming that using Chuck-ian time constraints works in your favor.

So using the statistics of the Bears defense since the start of 2010, when they brought in Julius Peppers, Tim Jennings, and Henry Melton is somehow misleading? It's a more accurate reflection of their performance in recent years to go back to 2009 when there were only two defensive starters ( Briggs, and Tillman, Urlacher missed all but the first half of the first game with injury) who are still starting on the team, vs. 2010, the first year where Peppers, Jennings, Melton, Idonije, and Wright all started or contributed? I don't see how it's pertinent to future performance (and this is relevant, since Fro was predicting a Bears loss in two weeks) to look at numbers from a defense that was nearly unrecognizable to the one that's on the field now, vs. the data since 2010, where the team, outside of a few changes (Chris Conte, Steven Paea, Nick Roach) was more or less the same.

Actually, you know what? Fuck it. I don't need your Chuck-ian restraints. Even if you throw in point totals for 2008 and 2009 (27 PPG against the Bears in 2008, 21 PPG in 2009 vs. 22.2 offensive PPG and 30.4 PPG in those years, respectively) the Bears have still defended the Packers offense better than the league in all but one year of Rodgers career.

If you want to add in points scored, which seems reasonable, you can put that one towards the Bears.

It's another proof point to add in service of the larger picture (refer to original table above), which basically sums up to Rodgers owning the Bears.

My original point said: "In some ways he owns them less than he owns the rest of the NFL" but you're deluding yourself if you don't acknowledge that he has essentially kicked the crap out of the Bears for the last 4-5 years.  

You can try and spin it anyway you like, but he's still 7-2 with a 101 Passer Rating, a 16/6 TD:INT ratio and a 70% completion rate.  

This is another annoying NFL fan take in which a quarterback is emblematic of an entire team's performance. The Packers' defense has fucking destroyed the Bears since Favre left. So the Bears have looked bad and lost. Somehow, that translates to Rodgers owns the Bears despite all this evidence to the contrary. PenFroDoggian bullshit.

[Yeti]

No, it's perfectly appropriate, assuming that using Chuck-ian time constraints works in your favor.

So using the statistics of the Bears defense since the start of 2010, when they brought in Julius Peppers, Tim Jennings, and Henry Melton is somehow misleading? It's a more accurate reflection of their performance in recent years to go back to 2009 when there were only two defensive starters ( Briggs, and Tillman, Urlacher missed all but the first half of the first game with injury) who are still starting on the team, vs. 2010, the first year where Peppers, Jennings, Melton, Idonije, and Wright all started or contributed? I don't see how it's pertinent to future performance (and this is relevant, since Fro was predicting a Bears loss in two weeks) to look at numbers from a defense that was nearly unrecognizable to the one that's on the field now, vs. the data since 2010, where the team, outside of a few changes (Chris Conte, Steven Paea, Nick Roach) was more or less the same.

Actually, you know what? Fuck it. I don't need your Chuck-ian restraints. Even if you throw in point totals for 2008 and 2009 (27 PPG against the Bears in 2008, 21 PPG in 2009 vs. 22.2 offensive PPG and 30.4 PPG in those years, respectively) the Bears have still defended the Packers offense better than the league in all but one year of Rodgers career.

So, what you're saying is that Peppers, Melton, Jennings and Co. don't matter?

[SKO]

No, it's perfectly appropriate, assuming that using Chuck-ian time constraints works in your favor.

So using the statistics of the Bears defense since the start of 2010, when they brought in Julius Peppers, Tim Jennings, and Henry Melton is somehow misleading? It's a more accurate reflection of their performance in recent years to go back to 2009 when there were only two defensive starters ( Briggs, and Tillman, Urlacher missed all but the first half of the first game with injury) who are still starting on the team, vs. 2010, the first year where Peppers, Jennings, Melton, Idonije, and Wright all started or contributed? I don't see how it's pertinent to future performance (and this is relevant, since Fro was predicting a Bears loss in two weeks) to look at numbers from a defense that was nearly unrecognizable to the one that's on the field now, vs. the data since 2010, where the team, outside of a few changes (Chris Conte, Steven Paea, Nick Roach) was more or less the same.

Actually, you know what? Fuck it. I don't need your Chuck-ian restraints. Even if you throw in point totals for 2008 and 2009 (27 PPG against the Bears in 2008, 21 PPG in 2009 vs. 22.2 offensive PPG and 30.4 PPG in those years, respectively) the Bears have still defended the Packers offense better than the league in all but one year of Rodgers career.

So, what you're saying is that Peppers, Melton, Jennings and Co. don't matter?

No, just that my original point stands up regardless, although they have performed better (19.8 PPG) against Rodgers with those guys then they did before (24 PPG), even though both figures, still, are less than Green Bay's average against the rest of the league.

[Oleg]

No, it's perfectly appropriate, assuming that using Chuck-ian time constraints works in your favor.

So using the statistics of the Bears defense since the start of 2010, when they brought in Julius Peppers, Tim Jennings, and Henry Melton is somehow misleading? It's a more accurate reflection of their performance in recent years to go back to 2009 when there were only two defensive starters ( Briggs, and Tillman, Urlacher missed all but the first half of the first game with injury) who are still starting on the team, vs. 2010, the first year where Peppers, Jennings, Melton, Idonije, and Wright all started or contributed? I don't see how it's pertinent to future performance (and this is relevant, since Fro was predicting a Bears loss in two weeks) to look at numbers from a defense that was nearly unrecognizable to the one that's on the field now, vs. the data since 2010, where the team, outside of a few changes (Chris Conte, Steven Paea, Nick Roach) was more or less the same.

Actually, you know what? Fuck it. I don't need your Chuck-ian restraints. Even if you throw in point totals for 2008 and 2009 (27 PPG against the Bears in 2008, 21 PPG in 2009 vs. 22.2 offensive PPG and 30.4 PPG in those years, respectively) the Bears have still defended the Packers offense better than the league in all but one year of Rodgers career.

So, what you're saying is that Peppers, Melton, Jennings and Co. don't matter?

No, just that my original point stands up regardless, although they have performed better (19.8 PPG) against Rodgers with those guys then they did before (24 PPG), even though both figures, still, are less than Green Bay's average against the rest of the league.

Get a haircut, hippie.

[Bort]

I see the new updated model of the Asshurt Perpetuity EXPeriment was built in Iowa.

[Richard Chuggar]

No, it's perfectly appropriate, assuming that using Chuck-ian time constraints works in your favor.

So using the statistics of the Bears defense since the start of 2010, when they brought in Julius Peppers, Tim Jennings, and Henry Melton is somehow misleading? It's a more accurate reflection of their performance in recent years to go back to 2009 when there were only two defensive starters ( Briggs, and Tillman, Urlacher missed all but the first half of the first game with injury) who are still starting on the team, vs. 2010, the first year where Peppers, Jennings, Melton, Idonije, and Wright all started or contributed? I don't see how it's pertinent to future performance (and this is relevant, since Fro was predicting a Bears loss in two weeks) to look at numbers from a defense that was nearly unrecognizable to the one that's on the field now, vs. the data since 2010, where the team, outside of a few changes (Chris Conte, Steven Paea, Nick Roach) was more or less the same.

Actually, you know what? Fuck it. I don't need your Chuck-ian restraints. Even if you throw in point totals for 2008 and 2009 (27 PPG against the Bears in 2008, 21 PPG in 2009 vs. 22.2 offensive PPG and 30.4 PPG in those years, respectively) the Bears have still defended the Packers offense better than the league in all but one year of Rodgers career.

So, what you're saying is that Peppers, Melton, Jennings and Co. don't matter?

No, just that my original point stands up regardless, although they have performed better (19.8 PPG) against Rodgers with those guys then they did before (24 PPG), even though both figures, still, are less than Green Bay's average against the rest of the league.

Get a haircut, hippie.

And a life.  Geesh. 

[Saul Goodman]

No, it's perfectly appropriate, assuming that using Chuck-ian time constraints works in your favor.

So using the statistics of the Bears defense since the start of 2010, when they brought in Julius Peppers, Tim Jennings, and Henry Melton is somehow misleading? It's a more accurate reflection of their performance in recent years to go back to 2009 when there were only two defensive starters ( Briggs, and Tillman, Urlacher missed all but the first half of the first game with injury) who are still starting on the team, vs. 2010, the first year where Peppers, Jennings, Melton, Idonije, and Wright all started or contributed? I don't see how it's pertinent to future performance (and this is relevant, since Fro was predicting a Bears loss in two weeks) to look at numbers from a defense that was nearly unrecognizable to the one that's on the field now, vs. the data since 2010, where the team, outside of a few changes (Chris Conte, Steven Paea, Nick Roach) was more or less the same.

Actually, you know what? Fuck it. I don't need your Chuck-ian restraints. Even if you throw in point totals for 2008 and 2009 (27 PPG against the Bears in 2008, 21 PPG in 2009 vs. 22.2 offensive PPG and 30.4 PPG in those years, respectively) the Bears have still defended the Packers offense better than the league in all but one year of Rodgers career.

So, what you're saying is that Peppers, Melton, Jennings and Co. don't matter?

No, just that my original point stands up regardless, although they have performed better (19.8 PPG) against Rodgers with those guys then they did before (24 PPG), even though both figures, still, are less than Green Bay's average against the rest of the league.

Get a haircut, hippie.

And a life.  Geesh. 

And a brain.  Moran.

[Chuck to Chuck]

No, it's perfectly appropriate, assuming that using Chuck-ian time constraints works in your favor.

So using the statistics of the Bears defense since the start of 2010, when they brought in Julius Peppers, Tim Jennings, and Henry Melton is somehow misleading? It's a more accurate reflection of their performance in recent years to go back to 2009 when there were only two defensive starters ( Briggs, and Tillman, Urlacher missed all but the first half of the first game with injury) who are still starting on the team, vs. 2010, the first year where Peppers, Jennings, Melton, Idonije, and Wright all started or contributed? I don't see how it's pertinent to future performance (and this is relevant, since Fro was predicting a Bears loss in two weeks) to look at numbers from a defense that was nearly unrecognizable to the one that's on the field now, vs. the data since 2010, where the team, outside of a few changes (Chris Conte, Steven Paea, Nick Roach) was more or less the same.

Actually, you know what? Fuck it. I don't need your Chuck-ian restraints. Even if you throw in point totals for 2008 and 2009 (27 PPG against the Bears in 2008, 21 PPG in 2009 vs. 22.2 offensive PPG and 30.4 PPG in those years, respectively) the Bears have still defended the Packers offense better than the league in all but one year of Rodgers career.

So, what you're saying is that Peppers, Melton, Jennings and Co. don't matter?

No, just that my original point stands up regardless, although they have performed better (19.8 PPG) against Rodgers with those guys then they did before (24 PPG), even though both figures, still, are less than Green Bay's average against the rest of the league.

Get a haircut, hippie.

And a life.  Geesh. 

And a brain.  Moran.

How the fuck did *I* get involved?

[Slaky]

Urlacher out 3 games or maybe the whole regular season.

I don't need a link. It's a fact.